Talk:Panthera onca mesembrina

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

When did jaguars appear?

This page claims that this animal appeared 1.8 million years ago. Therefore, that would make jaguars at least 1.8 million years old. However, the page for jaguars said they appeared 510,000 and 280,000. Which one is correct?

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Panthera onca mesembrina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) 18:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Good day again, Augustios!

Well-written

• I did do a series of rephrasing and copy-editing while nitpicking for unclear phrases. If you disagree with anything I changed, feel free to tell me. At first impression, I'm not sure you need to use Panthera onca instead of "jaguar" so much, and please remember that P. onca onca is the modern extant jaguar where clarification is needed.
• Panthera onca mesembrina is an extinct subspecies of jaguar that... please put (Panthera onca) after that first occurrence of jaguar just to clarify for the average layperson.
  • Done
• These fossils made the basis of a new genus and species named "Iemish listai" by naturalist Santiago Roth... - The phrasing here, "were made the basis of", doesn't flow well.
  • Done
• Cabrera created a new name for the giant felid remains, Panthera onca mesembrina,... - But Cabrera named it Felis onca mesembrina, not Panthera onca mesembrina. So this sentence is misleading and technically inaccurate.
  • The 1934 description called it 'Panthera', not Felis. I will fix this error.
• The bones of P. onca mesembrina are near double the size of the largest living jaguars', estimates placing it at... Please change to "The bones of P. onca mesembrina are nearly double the size of the largest living jaguars (Panthera onca onca), and estimates place it at..."
  • Done
• P. onca mesembrina was carnivorous and hunted a variety of large mammals, including the ground sloth Mylodon, horse Hippidion, and camelid Llama. I believe that is referring to the genus Lama for which the link is Lama (genus) and not the modern domesticated llama.
  • Done
• In March of 1899, an excavation in the cave was made by Erland and Otto Nordenskjöld, venturers from Sweden, who found a radius and ulna that they referred to a jaguar. - This sentence is also rather clunky ("an excavation in the cave was made" does not flow) and were they really called venturers? Or adventurers?
  • Done
• There, the museum's director Santiago Roth described the fossils in 1899 as being from a novel genus and species of feline, which he designated "Iemish listai". This name is after iemisch, a mythological monster thought to be living in Patagonia by naturalist Florentino Ameghino, leading the name to be associated with the monster as well as the fossils. - First off, the second sentence is confusing: the iemisch was already a mythological creature, right? But Ameghino thought it was a living cryptid, and then Roth thought these were fossil of it? Do I have that right? And why is the phrase "leading the name to be associated with the monster as well as the fossils" there?
  • Done, clarified
• Roth noted the similarities between the bones and the descriptions made by Ameghino and Tehuelche locals, with a guide of Roth's telling him that living iemisch resided near Lake Buenos Aires. What similarities? And please rephrase to "with a [Tehuelche? local?] guide telling Roth that a living iemisch resided..."
  • Done
• However, this name is now considered a nomen nudum. You might want to elaborate on why it is a nomen nudum.
  • Done
• I think you should split the first paragraph under History & taxonomy in two, with the second starting with Santiago Roth describing the fossils. This business of it being confused/synonymized with the iemisch of folklore is both interesting and (currently) confusing.
  • Done
• Cabrera proposed a new name, Panthera onca mesembrina, with the incomplete skull (MLP 10-90) as the holotype. Again, the name he proposed was Felis onca mesembrina, so this is technically inaccurate. And is there no etymology for mesembrina at all?
  • Done
    • Etymology for mesembrina? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done AFH (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the skull (MLP 10-90) was lost How was it lost? Why?
  • It is unknown how it was lost
• More fossils were later found at the cave, including feces, and described during the 20th century. That would be coprolites they found, right? So I suggest rephrasing to "including coprolites (fossilized feces),".
  • The paper I used stated feces and much of the Mylodon feces in the cave is still considered to be feces
    • Fascinating! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Description section now. At first and second reading, though, this section feels lacking. What makes P. o. mesembrina similar and dissimilar to modern jaguars and P. o. augusta; what are the proposed similarities between it and P. atrox- and what are the differences?
  • The similarities and differences are extremely technical, most of which are purely about size differences. Also, the differences between P. onca mesembrina and P. onca onca are the same as those with P. onca mesembrina and P. onca augusta.
    • I have added all anatomical differences
• Overall, P. o. mesembrina shared the robust, stocky build of P. onca but to an even greater degree, to the point where it may be a synonym of P. atrox. Why is that "to the point where it may be a synonym of P. atrox." appended to here? Please rephrase to "Overall, P. o. mesembrina shared the robust, stocky build of modern jaguars [or P. onca onca], but to an even greater degree." Perhaps you should move this sentence to the end of the first paragraph.
  • Done
• I feel like there needs to be more than just one paragraph, or at least more elaboration, after that, with a tad more detail about the subspecies and what makes it different from and similar to, first, fellow jaguars P. o. onca and P. o. augusta, and second, P. atrox.

• while the limbs had dark and some yellowish striping. This needs clarifying. Were the limbs striped with alternating dark and yellowish stripes? Were the stripes dark yellowish? Or did you misspeak and the limbs were dark overall with yellowish stripes?
  • done
• Is the cave painting 1.5 meters long or tall?
  • Done

• In Cueva del Milodon, however, it was a Mylodon cave due to the occurrence of juvenile and newborn Mylodon individuals. What is a Mylodon cave? A cave where Mylodon families nested or something?
  • yes, where they lived, slept, etc.
    • So perhaps rephrase to "it was a frequent [nest? den?] of Mylodon based on the occurrence of juvenile.."
      • Done
• Coprolites containing many Mylodon dermal ossicles were found in the cave, the coprolite likely belonging to P. onca mesembrina. The phrasing here is also pretty clunky, especially the second part of the sentence. "which were likely [defecated? produced by?] P. onca mesembrina"
  • done
• The majority of sites where P. onca mesembrina has been found in Argentina and Chile were very open and arid in the late Pleistocene, right? Please clarify, because I think some part of those countries are still open and arid, so this may be a were where an are should be.
  • Done
• Cueva del Milodon is the southernmost site known to be occupied by jaguars, bearing near subantarctic temperatures. "Bearing near subantarctic temperatures"? What does that mean?
  • Done

Illustrated

• Since so much of the subspecies is known, a life restoration could (should?) be requested at WP:PALEOART.
• And/or a size diagram showing how large it is compared to a human and/or a modern jaguar.
  • I can make a skeletal based on the skull
    • Thanks. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• And are there really no photographs of the cave painting cat to be had? Lagniappe!
• Since the procurement of images is not entirely in your control, these requests are not requirements.

Overall

1. Well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated

I am going to go ahead and promote this article to GA, as it meets all criteria. Thank you for your hard work, Augustios. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.